Top posting for message(s) to show up.
louis_friend@email.com (Louis Friend) wrote in message news:<54fde2f0.0404201035.7d964af6@posting.google.com>...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Louis Friend <louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Louis Friend <louis_friend@email.com> wrote:
"Bennett Standeven" <berry@pop.networkusa.net>
Very well. Abortion does not cause breast cancer,
because if it did,
it would have been eliminated by natural selection.
Cute... but a heavy weight would know better than that!
Abortion is and has been common for thousands of years.
I have to hand it to you. You have a real talent in
missing the point,
You're the one that keeps missing the point, moron.
Actually no, you did...
evolutionary mechanisms, not abortion history.
You'll notice Bennett hasn't bothered
to follow up his post. Also just because abortion
has been 'common' (whatever that means)
for thousands of years, doesn't mean it has been effective
for thousands of years... but I'm not too informed on
induced abortion history, so if you have some online
resources on the history of abortion, its methods and
effectiveness I'd like to read them. Thanks.
Abortion has been around for thousands (even millions)
When you say millions of years, I assume you're talking
about spontaneous abortion. What I am concerned with
is induced abortion... I apologize if there was confusion
over my use of the word abortion by itself,
but I am focused on induced abortion.
Furthermore millions of years isn't much considering
the genetic ancestry of cancers. Certainly very
significant for the hominid genome... but not for cancers.
of years and has not managed to kill off women.
Wasn't one of the reasons that people wanted to
make induced abortion legal is to ensure it was done
by trained professionals... and that fewer women
would be injured/killed by improper induced abortions?
Anyway, why would an increase risk of breast cancer
'kill off women'? I mean women smoke cigarettes,
and it doesn't kill them off per say. But it does
contribute to their long term health risks, which
can in time shorten their lifespan. But its not like
they start dropping like flies.
[...]
At issue here is evolutionary mechanisms, and how
Mr. Standeven doesn't understand them very well...
and neither do you if you think millennia or even eons
ago (from today), would significantly impact the human
genome.
You _are_ stupid.
If I were stupid I assure you there would be
talk.origins regulars telling me so, and more
importantly backing it up, including Bennett.
Besides... I'm not the one under the impression
Dr. Melbye is anti-abortion. LOL!
That's an evolutionary *eye blink*!
Dogs have been domesticated for just 15,000 years.
Look at all the variety of dogs that have been created
by mankind.
Precisely... mankind, not natural selection.
That is known as artificial selection.
If you need a refresher on evolution, I highly
recommend: http://www.talkorigins.org
FYI: Pure breeds (extreme artificial
selection) have higher incidence of diseases
such as breast cancer than mixed breeds do.
Humans only live ten times as long.
That is a huge difference... if it were accurate.
Something tells me human lifespans were shorter
in the past, but of course so were domestic animals.
I wonder what the ratio actually was from
various time periods... intriguing.
A lot of changes
can happen to the human genome
over the span of 4,000 generations.
Your vague point fails to actually respond
to the fact that breast cancer exercises little
selective pressure, so it doesn't matter what
timescale you use. And 4,000 generations
is a touch longer than millennia of induced abortion
history you proposed before. On top of that
4,000 generations from *today*, isn't a big deal...
since our species was established ~135,000
years ago.
4,000 generations back starting 130,000 years ago
would be more exciting evolutionarily speaking.
Also it should be pointed out to you
that the genetic predisposition to breast cancer,
which is used by pro-choice advocates such as
ourselves to provide perspective on breast
cancer risk factors, has itself not been selected out...
despite bringing a much earlier and more deadly
cases of breast cancer.
I should actually refine my analogy...
our species Homo sapiens sapiens is an
evolutionary eye blink... things on the timescale
of millennia or even eons are eye twitches,
especially from today.
Additionally I'm not asserting that abortion causes
breast cancer... but rather it raises the risk,
marginally in most cases.
In short, you're promoting pro-lie propaganda
In short, your contempt outweighs your understanding,
No, *****, it does not.
Irony, the spice of NewsGroups.
without any supporting evidence.
That is a lie.
No _credible_ supporting evidence.
How would you know what is credible...
You can't even characterize NCI conclusions
accurately, nor can you be bothered to actually
research much, including Dr. Melbye's
position/findings on the ABC issue and abortion.
To date here are references I have posted
on this thread,
We know about Melbye. He's anti-abortion.
Another lie,
do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
Dr. Melbye is not anti-abortion, if he is then he sure
got a weird way of showing it.
His work has been discredited.
Dr. Brind does his best to point out weaknesses in
Dr. Melbye's studies, but to my knowledge it hasn't
been 'discredited' by the scientific community,
nor should it be, because there is a lot of good stuff in
there.
If the parts that are weak/flawed
have been discredited, then good!
.
